![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
270238 Posts |
![]() Quote:
OK, great for k < 300 and n < 100K. I knew it had been double-checked but didn't realize the extent to which it had been done. I've caught 1-2 errors of my own that had already been double-checked by doing a 'triple-check' so I figured it was worth a shot. I won't go any further with it. Would you like me to double-check some k's < 300 with unusually large prime gaps at some point? Ones specifically that I saw (besides the infamous k=289 that I already checked) are for k=261 from n=185283 to 618918 and k=297 from n=82782 to 225274. (I only looked at k > 250 for large prime gaps.) If we're unsure about any prior testing range on those, I'd be glad to add whatever ranges are in doubt to my double-checking task list in this thread. One more thing...do the double-checked ranges for the 6 k's that I did need to be reported to Prof. Keller? If he needs a results file, I can send it also. Gary |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 | |
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
1179510 Posts |
![]() Quote:
I'm not ignoring your post here. There's a lot in it and I need to 'play around' on the internet to attempt to understand some things. I'm still a relative 'newbie' at this (4 months). I have only a cursory understanding of what LLRnet and BOINC are. They sound like good ideas for a double-check effort. As far as what ranges I could give you on a double-check effort, it would be for n=50K to 100K for as many k's as you could reasonably stand! ![]() If you don't mind me asking...How come you only run your machine 8-9 hours/day? You should be able to do most things on it and run both cores at the same time. On my main machine that I have most of my personal stuff on, if I need to run another program or process that needs some serious CPU cycles, I'll temporarily stop one of the cores from LLRing and then restart it after I'm done. All of my machines run 24 hours non-stop on either LLRing or sieving unless they finish in the middle of the night or while I'm at work, which they seem fond of doing! ![]() I'll get back with you a little more on your thoughts on double-checking later on. Gary |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | |||
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
3×2,083 Posts |
![]()
Note: I've split your post into multiple quote sections for easier reading.
Quote:
![]() ![]() Quote:
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2007-09-18 at 23:13 Reason: fixed some typos |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
5·7·337 Posts |
![]()
Kosmaj,
The double-checking of the 6 k's that you requested has now completed. The following final prime was confirmed: 203 248862 No missing or incorrect primes were found. Let me know if I need to report it anywhere. I attempted to attach a 2.44 MB results file, but even zipped, it was around 570 KB; too big for the size restriction here. Gary |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Nov 2003
E2616 Posts |
![]()
Hi Gary,
Please mail the details including Ks, ranges you tested, and primes you confirmed to Wilfrid Keller. You can find his address on this page. You can also mention the range of k=289 you tested before. There is no need to send any results. He is interested only in k<300. And don't forget to sign your message with your real, full name. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
5·7·337 Posts |
![]() Quote:
I sent the note to Mr. Keller. A funny or annoying side note on this depending on how you look at it...After finding no prime for k=289 from my original range of n=260K-520K (other than the 2 already found), I went back and double-checked the range of n=90K-260K. No luck...a remarkably large primeless range. But this turned out to be a good thing. In looking at Mr. Keller's site, I see that there were a few small gaps in checking of ranges for n=100K-200K. So I went ahead and reported that I had double-checked the entire range of n=90K-520K. So now all of his gaps are filled up to n=520K. ![]() On another note...Anon has kindly agreed to do some sieving for the range of 300<k<=1001 for the range of n=50K-100K for a double-check effort. Although sieving shouldn't take too long...I'm guessing 2 weeks or so on a 24-hour high-speed machine, the LLR will be rather substantial. I was planning on holding off on this until next year but now may possibly attempt to get some of it done by the end of this year. I may enlist the help of a few others on it if anyone cares to assist. Gary |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
5×7×337 Posts |
![]()
Kosmaj,
It looks like Prof. Keller's ranges page for Riesels has been updated to include the ranges that I double-checked. In looking at his page, I see that there are many ranges that have not been checked. Are there any that you're particularly concerned about? I know you said that there were many ranges that you and someone else had checked but had not sent to him. Let me know. Since I'll be working on k=5 from n=470K-500K here shortly, I won't have the CPU resources to do much in the way of double-checking until that is done. But at that point, I will probably plan on splitting 2 core's time between LLRing 300 < k <= 1001 from n=50K-100K and anything you deem important for double-checking for k < 300. Gary |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
5·7·337 Posts |
![]()
After getting a sieve file from Anon (thanks Anon!), I have started doing some LLRing for a double-check of the range 300 < k <= 1001 for 50K < n <= 100K.
This is a large LLR effort and I will work on it on-and-off for a while splitting time with k=5 and another sieving effort that I'm working on. I split it up in 100 k pieces. I'm currently working on k=300-400 and k=400-500, one 100 k piece on each core of a dual-core machine. After about 10 hours on both cores, k=301, 303, 401, and 403 are complete. There were a total of 6 primes in the range for those k's and no errors were found. So I don't inundate everyone with status reports, from this point forward, I'll plan on reporting statuses and any errors found after completion of each 100 k piece. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2007-10-25 at 16:35 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
3×2,083 Posts |
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | ||
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
5·7·337 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Per the above, did you have a chance to report your completed double-checked ranges to Prof. Keller yet? If not, can you let me know what they are? If Prof. Keller would be OK with it and it would save you some time, I could report them for you if you let me know which ranges were searched by whom. I'll make sure that I specify that to him. Quote:
I'm nearly half done LLRing my double-check for 300 < k <= 1001 for 50K < n <= 100K. (Several missing primes as expected will be posted on Wednesday.) After completing it, I would like to get more of the ranges filled in on Prof. Keller's site for k < 300 but I don't want to double-check what you or Thomas have already done. I can start one core now on sieving some double-check ranges for k < 300 if you can let me know. Thanks, Gary |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | |
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
5·7·337 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Bump Bump |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Double checking of Results | pinhodecarlos | Prime Gap Searches | 13 | 2017-12-09 06:07 |
What about double-checking TF/P-1? | 137ben | PrimeNet | 6 | 2012-03-13 04:01 |
Double checking | Unregistered | Information & Answers | 19 | 2011-07-29 09:57 |
Double-checking milestone? | jobhoti | Math | 17 | 2004-05-21 05:02 |
Any glory in double checking? | Quacky | Lounge | 5 | 2003-12-03 02:20 |